in the second article I didn't relate to any off the "allowances" for example, I totally am afraid of gun enthusiasts of any race and totally would never encourage my kids to date rednecks who don't know about condoms. LOL I'm also atheist and was rather annoyed that whites are being stereotyped as Christian ... uhhhm no.
The problem is the Democrats just cannot understand why people would want to vote for McCain, and therefore don't prepare for it. There's a lot of Americans who want things like universal healthcare and more public goods, but they don't want it at the price of reduced American foreign prestige, or evil countries taking advantage of the US (most Americans consider Iran evil, and rightfully so)
Honestly, if the Dems had fielded a competent candidate in 2004, Bush wouldn't be in the White House today. If Obama loses, against a fairly weak Republican candidate, quite simply the Dems are going to have to re-invent themselves or they'll become as obselete in the US as the Whigs.
I don't want to sound mean here, but your statement reflects part of the image problems the Dems face today. The average red stater, which is a MAJORITY of America, sees the Dems as elitists who don't like them and want to impose "Hollywood values" on their lifestyle, and make them pay for it at the local level. This image problem has gotten so bad that Americans are even thinking the network news has a massive liberal bias now- and that's a large reason for the Palin bump- Americans are angry at their news media.
As for the articles, the first article was overly simplistic, the second article made sense.
There's liberal and conservative libertarians. Libertarian includes the drug-legalizers and consumption-tax supporters (I refuse to use the term "Fair tax", as it isn't)
That doesn't change my point at all, which is that the Dems are blowing things and it's their own fault. The Dems bungled the Palin reaction so bad she's gotten sympathy.
Quite simply, it's historic that the Reps have done as bad as they have done and still kept winning. That means the Dems are screwing up historically, and I blame statements like Harry Reid's "Oil will make you sick" statement. When gas costs $4.00+, being poorer makes you sicker then not having oil. A lot of folks got sore over statements like that.
I'm allowed to have whatever opinions I want to have, I'm not suggesting you share them. In fact, I don't care what anyone else thinks, they are free to go think whatever they want freely and not bother me with it. The fact of the matter is I personally judge people based mostly on their actions and not the very much on what they say, and sure as hell not on how they look. I can easily ignore looks and speech, it's the actions that are the problem. I'm also not a dem (as I already stated)... so no, your point does not have to do with me or my comment at all.
My saying "I wouldn't encourage my kids to date a redneckish person (meaning someone who shoots things and doesn't use condoms etc [stupid acts], not just by how someone may speak or look... if you go by looks/speech alone I myself have dated a couple "rednecks" in my life lol)." and "I dislike that whites are stereotyped as religious." doesn't harm anyone else one bit.
Regardless of the "dem reaction" someone who is not brainwashed or a retard (no matter what group they belong to) can see this woman is ditzy and SEVERELY lacks experience and intelligence.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
in the second article I didn't relate to any off the "allowances" for example, I totally am afraid of gun enthusiasts of any race and totally would never encourage my kids to date rednecks who don't know about condoms. LOL I'm also atheist and was rather annoyed that whites are being stereotyped as Christian ... uhhhm no.
no subject
Honestly, if the Dems had fielded a competent candidate in 2004, Bush wouldn't be in the White House today. If Obama loses, against a fairly weak Republican candidate, quite simply the Dems are going to have to re-invent themselves or they'll become as obselete in the US as the Whigs.
I don't want to sound mean here, but your statement reflects part of the image problems the Dems face today. The average red stater, which is a MAJORITY of America, sees the Dems as elitists who don't like them and want to impose "Hollywood values" on their lifestyle, and make them pay for it at the local level. This image problem has gotten so bad that Americans are even thinking the network news has a massive liberal bias now- and that's a large reason for the Palin bump- Americans are angry at their news media.
As for the articles, the first article was overly simplistic, the second article made sense.
no subject
To be fair, the first article was a Letter to the Editor for the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, and they enforce a pretty strict word limit.
no subject
no subject
no subject
That doesn't change my point at all, which is that the Dems are blowing things and it's their own fault. The Dems bungled the Palin reaction so bad she's gotten sympathy.
Quite simply, it's historic that the Reps have done as bad as they have done and still kept winning. That means the Dems are screwing up historically, and I blame statements like Harry Reid's "Oil will make you sick" statement. When gas costs $4.00+, being poorer makes you sicker then not having oil. A lot of folks got sore over statements like that.
no subject
My saying "I wouldn't encourage my kids to date a redneckish person (meaning someone who shoots things and doesn't use condoms etc [stupid acts], not just by how someone may speak or look... if you go by looks/speech alone I myself have dated a couple "rednecks" in my life lol)." and "I dislike that whites are stereotyped as religious." doesn't harm anyone else one bit.
Regardless of the "dem reaction" someone who is not brainwashed or a retard (no matter what group they belong to) can see this woman is ditzy and SEVERELY lacks experience and intelligence.